Actual Atonement vs Potential Atonement

[savedbymercy]

jon c

Regarding Christ’s death as propitiatory is stating the Christ died to appease God’s wrath.

Thats correct, and He did appease God's Wrath for those He died for, so it can be said of them 1 Thess 1:10

And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

The word delivered here is present tense, they are in a state of deliverance. Also propitiation in 1 Jn 2:2 is in the present tense, Christ's Blood is continually appeasing God's Wrath for those He died for.

Now if that is Truth, thn the ones that Jesus said The wrath of God abides on them in Jn 3:36

36He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

That word abideth is present tense, and means is abding continually on him. Now, how can that one be part of the group of 1 Jn 2:2 ? Its impossible. So that lets us know 1 Jn 2:2 cannot mean all without exception !

 

[savedbymercy]

Perhaps you can explain it further.

Check my threads, I am sure I have explained it there if you are interested . Do you know what it means ?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Check my threads, I am sure I have explained it there if you are interested . Do you know what it means ?

Yes & I have even explained in full on here.... you can check my archives. :thumbsup:

 

[JonC]

The word delivered here is present tense, they are in a state of deliverance. Also propitiation in 1 Jn 2:2 is in the present tense, Christ's Blood is continually appeasing God's Wrath for those He died for.

Now if that is Truth, thn the ones that Jesus said The wrath of God abides on them in Jn 3:36

36He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

That word abideth is present tense, and means is abding continually on him. Now, how can that one be part of the group of 1 Jn 2:2 ? Its impossible. So that lets us know 1 Jn 2:2 cannot mean all without exception !

And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. (1 John 2:22)
You are still interpreting the word to suit your theology. The word itself carries a specific meaning.

Not all without exception. Do you understand what proptiatioin means ? Obviusly not

Your argument was the definition of propitiation (ἱλασμός), not who benefits from this propitiation. The ones who will believe and the one’s who will not believe are not the subject of propitiation – Christ is the appeasement of God.

I am not saying that you do not have a good argument as a whole, but it extends beyond the meaning of propitiation. This difference is important in terms of arguing for or against potential atonement.

 

[savedbymercy]

Yes & I have even explained in full on here.... you can check my archives. :thumbsup:

So you believe those that Christ has propitiated God's Wrath in behalf of, can still suffer God's Wrath ? Paul writes 1 Thess 1:10

And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

You believe some whom God's wrath hath been satisfied for, will not be delivered from the wrath to come ?

 

[JonC]

__________

 

[DaChaser1]

I think that the suffering and death that Christ, under the penal-substitution view, experienced in our stead was spiritual; it was not the physical sufferings and death that we experience. In that, the penal-substitution theory is dependent upon a Trinitarian view. The Father sending his Son is illustrated in the narrative concerning Abraham and Isaac; but this is not complete. Christ laid down his own life, on his accord, for our sins. It is an error (from the penal-substitution view) to view God punishing Jesus in our place because Jesus is God. I view it instead as a self-sacrifice.

You are correct in identifying that this is linked with the Old Covenant. I view the Law as an expression of the nature of God and foreshadowing the New Covenant, but I can certainly understand why you would view it as legalistic.
I am not in disagreement with your statement regarding the validity of the Christus Victor position. Christ overcame death by the Incarnation, Atonement, and Resurrection as a whole. Neither is independent of the other. I think that that is the flaw in holding the penal-substitution theory in isolation of other aspects of Christ’s work. The theory is also subjective to those who will be saved, so there is difficulty in addressing Christ as “the Lamb of God” without having to relate this to man.

How one addresses these issues will determine whether the question of actual vs potential atonement is even a valid question. Personally, I believe that it is not.

isn't the problem that some of the atonement theories are satan getting paid for debts that we legally owe to god instead?
Also, there is the principle that Jesus is second adam, and is head of the reborn, and that he death was for our stead, payment to god, so ahd to be a substitionery fashion!

 

[DaChaser1]

And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. (1 John 2:22)
You are still interpreting the word to suit your theology. The word itself carries a specific meaning.



Your argument was the definition of propitiation (ἱλασμός), not who benefits from this propitiation. The ones who will believe and the one’s who will not believe are not the subject of propitiation – Christ is the appeasement of God.

I am not saying that you do not have a good argument as a whole, but it extends beyond the meaning of propitiation. This difference is important in terms of arguing for or against potential atonement.

did Christ bears the sins of all sinners, or just appeased the wrath of God towards the elect of God?

 

[DaChaser1]

So you believe those that Christ has propitiated God's Wrath in behalf of, can still suffer God's Wrath ? Paul writes 1 Thess 1:10

And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

You believe some whom God's wrath hath been satisfied for, will not be delivered from the wrath to come ?

which wrath, the one unleased ai End Times, or by God against siiners?

 

[savedbymercy]

which wrath, the one unleased ai End Times, or by God against siiners?

Both ! Those Christ died for do not experience any Legal or Judicial wrath from God. They are delivered from that wrath which is revealed from heaven upon the reprobated world such as Jn 3:36

36He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

They never experience that wrath ! or Rom 1:18


18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

You see, all the ungodliness and unrighteousness of God's Elect was imputed upon Christ and He endured God's Wrath for them, so it is written Heb 8:12

For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Now there is a Fatherly wrath or anger of chastisement the elect must meet with ! Ps 30:5

5For his anger endureth but a moment; in his favour is life: weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.

But this is nothing more really than His Chastening,m and Loving Hand, which though can be grevious to flesh and blood Heb 12:11

11Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.

So please answer the question !

Here it is again:

You believe some whom God's wrath hath been satisfied for, will not be delivered from the wrath to come ?

 

[JonC]

jon c



Thats correct, and He did appease God's Wrath for those He died for, so it can be said of them 1 Thess 1:10

And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

The word delivered here is present tense, they are in a state of deliverance. Also propitiation in 1 Jn 2:2 is in the present tense, Christ's Blood is continually appeasing God's Wrath for those He died for.

Now if that is Truth, thn the ones that Jesus said The wrath of God abides on them in Jn 3:36

36He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

That word abideth is present tense, and means is abding continually on him. Now, how can that one be part of the group of 1 Jn 2:2 ? Its impossible. So that lets us know 1 Jn 2:2 cannot mean all without exception !

I think you missed what I was saying.

I agree with you in what you have stated (I have not actually looked up the Greek for the tenses as it doesn’t have any bearing on my point – and my Greek isn’t that strong anyway – but I have no problem accepting that you have).

My point is that you were defining propitiation, implying that someone (I can’t remember who) didn’t know the definition because it applies to a specific group of people. Yes, the elect are the only ones who will be redeemed. But the definition for propitiation does not in itself prove this. Never in the Old Testament is propitiation used with sin as its subject – not once.

You state that “He did appease God’s wrath for those He died for.” The last part (the part in italics) is an addition when regarding Christ as the propitiation for the sins of man. Some view this as saying that it means that He died for no one – which is of course an asinine statement. What it is saying is that phrases and clauses should be treated as units.

I agree with you that Christ appeased God’s wrath for those who would believe (and that those who don’t believe will experience the wrath of God), but I disagree in your methods of exegesis. 1 John 2:2 can very well mean exactly what it says, without utilizing theological insights to apply this to a particular people. It depends on where you find the subject of the passage (is the subject Christ, the One who propitiates; or is it sin?).

 

[JonC]

isn't the problem that some of the atonement theories are satan getting paid for debts that we legally owe to god instead?

That has been the “traditional” or classic view. This is a problem with many, even who hold the Ransom Theory to be correct. Gustaf Aulen held the Ransom view, but he views the position that the ransom was paid to Satan was mistakenly assumed due to the metaphors used by the early Church. He presents “ransom” to have meant “liberation.” This is the Christus Victor position - Christ is the victor over sin, death and satan. But, yes, the view that God paid a debt to Satan is a problem – it is probably a common view in some form (especially in Hollywood), even among adherents of other positions.

Also, there is the principle that Jesus is second adam, and is head of the reborn, and that he death was for our stead, payment to god, so ahd to be a substitionery fashion!

And yes, the penal-substitution theory holds that Christ died as a substitute for men. It is not necessarily a stronger support for Christ as the second Adam than other theories, but Scripture does present Christ as the second Adam.

did Christ bears the sins of all sinners, or just appeased the wrath of God towards the elect of God?

I believe that Christ bears the sin of man. He Himself is the propitiation for our sin, not only ours but for the whole world. I see this verse as describing Christ as the propitiation for the sin of the whole world. Add a million people, it’s the same (Christ wouldn’t have to do more), take away a million elect and it’s still the same (He would not have need to do less). It does matter if it is one person or millions. In that, only the wrath of the elect are appeased. Those who do not believe will suffer the wrath of God because they are still in their sins and they do not believe.

 

[savedbymercy]

jonc

Yes, the elect are the only ones who will be redeemed. But the definition for propitiation does not in itself prove this.

It does ! Who else could it apply to ? Everyone else will be going to hell for their sins, thats the wrath of God.

 

[DaChaser1]

jonc



It does ! Who else could it apply to ? Everyone else will be going to hell for their sins, thats the wrath of God.

God determined the outcome of their chice to reject christ, NOT determining that they go there!

Hr predestines the Elect, NOT the unsaved, they go as to their 'free will"!

 

[DaChaser1]

I think you missed what I was saying.

I agree with you in what you have stated (I have not actually looked up the Greek for the tenses as it doesn’t have any bearing on my point – and my Greek isn’t that strong anyway – but I have no problem accepting that you have).

My point is that you were defining propitiation, implying that someone (I can’t remember who) didn’t know the definition because it applies to a specific group of people. Yes, the elect are the only ones who will be redeemed. But the definition for propitiation does not in itself prove this. Never in the Old Testament is propitiation used with sin as its subject – not once.

You state that “He did appease God’s wrath for those He died for.” The last part (the part in italics) is an addition when regarding Christ as the propitiation for the sins of man. Some view this as saying that it means that He died for no one – which is of course an asinine statement. What it is saying is that phrases and clauses should be treated as units.

I agree with you that Christ appeased God’s wrath for those who would believe (and that those who don’t believe will experience the wrath of God), but I disagree in your methods of exegesis. 1 John 2:2 can very well mean exactly what it says, without utilizing theological insights to apply this to a particular people. It depends on where you find the subject of the passage (is the subject Christ, the One who propitiates; or is it sin?).

propitiation would refer to the transaction between the father and Son upon the Cross, as his blood shed was the 'mercy seat" where sins was atoned and paid for in full!

Think the atonement has to be seen through lense of OT sacrifices...

God was the One who has actual injustice owed Him, as wilfull sinning going on, so someone HAS to pay Him for the "sin debt" that we have on our spiritual account!

Penal substitionary view NOT barbaric/makes God evil etc DOES show us just HOW bad sin really is, and Just how much grace really means!

 

[JonC]

propitiation would refer to the transaction between the father and Son upon the Cross, as his blood shed was the 'mercy seat" where sins was atoned and paid for in full!

Think the atonement has to be seen through lense of OT sacrifices...

God was the One who has actual injustice owed Him, as wilfull sinning going on, so someone HAS to pay Him for the "sin debt" that we have on our spiritual account!

Penal substitionary view NOT barbaric/makes God evil etc DOES show us just HOW bad sin really is, and Just how much grace really means!

I agree. Another reason that the penal substitution view is not barbaric can be seen in the Trinity. Christ lay down His own life as a self-sacrifice.

Some object because they view the view as presenting the Father killing His righteous Son instead of those who deserve to die. Pinnock, for example, states that this makes God worse than Hitler. What Pinnock misses is that the love of the Father in sending His Son is coupled with the love of the Son to sacrifice Himself. It is wrong to view the Penal Substitution theory of atonement as stating that the Father killed His Son, because Christ lay down His own life for us. It is self-sacrifice.

That said, the Penal-substitution theory alone may not incorporate the fullness of the atonement. It is difficult for me to understand the benefit to the non-elect (although they are not redeemed) as merely accidental or something that overflows. Also, there is a victory over sin, Satan, and death that are not actually addressed by the Penal substitution theory (in addition to implications to the elect, Christ will judge the wicked, all will bow, and His kingdom will reign).

I believe that you are absolutely correct in that the atonement needs to be viewed through the sacrificial system (it is even presented in that manner in the New Testament).

 

[DaChaser1]

I agree. Another reason that the penal substitution view is not barbaric can be seen in the Trinity. Christ lay down His own life as a self-sacrifice.

Some object because they view the view as presenting the Father killing His righteous Son instead of those who deserve to die. Pinnock, for example, states that this makes God worse than Hitler. What Pinnock misses is that the love of the Father in sending His Son is coupled with the love of the Son to sacrifice Himself. It is wrong to view the Penal Substitution theory of atonement as stating that the Father killed His Son, because Christ lay down His own life for us. It is self-sacrifice.

That said, the Penal-substitution theory alone may not incorporate the fullness of the atonement. It is difficult for me to understand the benefit to the non-elect (although they are not redeemed) as merely accidental or something that overflows. Also, there is a victory over sin, Satan, and death that are not actually addressed by the Penal substitution theory (in addition to implications to the elect, Christ will judge the wicked, all will bow, and His kingdom will reign).

I believe that you are absolutely correct in that the atonement needs to be viewed through the sacrificial system (it is even presented in that manner in the New Testament).

I hold to general benefits of the Cross extended towards sinners, in that they receive an eternity/will have an eternity in bodily form, will have God not judging until end times this world system, and has the HS still here keeping evil at bay! And has Christianity into society salting it, allowing them to have the benefits of adopting tjose beliefs and practices!

perhaps would be primary a substitionary death as atonemnt, with secondary towards creation itself, as when God causes Creation itself to bedone nack to pre sin state?

perhaps

 

[JonC]

I hold to general benefits of the Cross extended towards sinners, in that they receive an eternity/will have an eternity in bodily form, will have God not judging until end times this world system, and has the HS still here keeping evil at bay! And has Christianity into society salting it, allowing them to have the benefits of adopting tjose beliefs and practices!

perhaps would be primary a substitionary death as atonemnt, with secondary towards creation itself, as when God causes Creation itself to bedone nack to pre sin state?

perhaps

I think so – at least from our perspective. There are aspects that other views point out that are also right – but I believe that the purpose for those being saved are summed upon the Penal substitution theory.

 

[savedbymercy]

God determined the outcome of their chice to reject christ, NOT determining that they go there!

Hr predestines the Elect, NOT the unsaved, they go as to their 'free will"!

Dude, either one's sins have been propitiated by Christ or not. If they have been, God has no wrath for them, none at all ! Not one sin can be charged against anyone Christ died for !

 

[JonC]

It does ! Who else could it apply to ? Everyone else will be going to hell for their sins, thats the wrath of God.

Are you being serious?

1 John 2:2
2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

Diagram the passage. Christ is the propitiation for our sins. Christ is the propitiation. You are talking about the effect, or what the atonement applies to – but in this verse you are not grammatically correct, and yours is certainly not the only way to view the verse.

Do you remember your statement to DaChaser1?

[/QUOTE]

Not all without exception. Do you understand what proptiatioin means ? Obviusly not !

You were arguing that propitiation cannot mean all without exception. You are stating a truth, that those who do not believe will go to hell for their sins, and that this is the wrath of God. But it has absolutely nothing to do with implying that propitiation has to have “sin” as its subject.

If you really can’t see what I am saying, that’s fine. We actually believe the same regarding the elect, non-elect, and God’s wrath.